| Literature DB >> 19965799 |
Jenine K Harris1, Sarah C Shelton, Sarah Moreland-Russell, Douglas A Luke.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Tobacco control policies gained ground nationwide in 2006, with voters in nine states approving legislation to strengthen clean indoor air policies and increase tobacco excise taxes. Despite having the second lowest cigarette tax rate in the nation, Missouri was unsuccessful in passing its 2006 ballot initiative to raise the tax. An important way to encourage health-related policy change such as increasing tobacco taxes is through media coverage of tobacco issues. We examined how tobacco issues were presented in Missouri's print media leading up to the 2006 election.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2009 PMID: 19965799 PMCID: PMC2921260 DOI: 10.1136/tc.2009.032516
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Tob Control ISSN: 0964-4563 Impact factor: 7.552
Tobacco control theme categories and arguments
| Dominant theme | Argument | Number of arguments | % arguments by theme | Brennan and Prediger's κ |
| Economic | Tax will pay for other health-related programmes | 501 | 29% | 0.83 |
| The tax will pay for tobacco prevention and cessation programmes | 478 | 28% | 0.84 | |
| The tax will raise general revenue for the state | 357 | 21% | 0.82 | |
| States don't spend enough money on tobacco control and prevention; there needs to be an increase in dollars for tobacco control and prevention | 79 | 5% | 0.86 | |
| The tax will recover medical expenses associated with tobacco-related disease | 76 | 4% | 0.88 | |
| The tax money may not go where its intended (eg, MSA funding misappropriation) | 74 | 4% | 0.90 | |
| The revenue from the tax will not be enough to cover the promised services (unfunded mandate) | 67 | 4% | 0.92 | |
| A smoking ban hurts/will hurt businesses | 52 | 3% | 0.93 | |
| The tax will hurt businesses | 48 | 3% | 0.97 | |
| Should tax those who smoke | 44 | 3% | 0.91 | |
| Health | Tobacco use leads to negative health consequences | 383 | 33% | 0.57 |
| Concerned about secondhand smoke | 235 | 20% | 0.69 | |
| Increasing the cigarette tax is a way to decrease tobacco use | 173 | 15% | 0.82 | |
| The tax will increase prevention/cessation among youth | 138 | 12% | 0.86 | |
| Tobacco use by individual or family member/friend | 118 | 10% | 0.82 | |
| Tobacco use is addictive; people cannot help it | 96 | 8% | 0.85 | |
| Raising taxes will have no effect on tobacco use | 24 | 2% | 0.95 | |
| Political | Tobacco use is a personal choice/freedom | 103 | 27% | 0.89 |
| The tobacco industry deceived us | 66 | 18% | 0.91 | |
| It's not fair to tax a certain group of people | 65 | 17% | 0.91 | |
| Taxes are high enough; taxes in general should not be increased | 57 | 15% | 0.90 | |
| It's a regressive tax | 45 | 12% | 0.97 | |
| There are problems that need to be addressed other than tobacco use | 20 | 5% | 0.96 | |
| Tobacco use is legal | 16 | 4% | 0.97 | |
| Should not punish people who are addicted to tobacco | 4 | 1% | 0.99 |
Figure 1Dominant theme and position of letters to the editor, news stories and editorials.
Figure 2Trends in article position and dominant theme before the November 2006 election.
Figure 3Neutral and anti-tobacco control economic articles surged just prior to the November 2006 election.
Figure 4Mean percent of voters supporting the tax by article theme and position in the county where the article was published.